From: name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

23 January 2012

I am coming to you as the Regulator of Oxleas Mental Health NHS Trust because they refuse to answer my FOI Requests.

I asked in my FOI Request about untoward incidents at Oxleas. I now would like to ask you the questions I asked Oxleas and they refused - I have extended it to today's date, which makes it a different request again:

I refer to the Oxleas Executive Board Committee of June 2011:

"This was the first in-patient suicide for 2.5 years."

I would like to know what the Levels of Untoward Incident actually are.

What constitutes a Level 1 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 2 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 3 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 4 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 5 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

Is there any higher grade of Untoward Incident? If so, what constitutes a higher level of Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

How many incidents at Oxleas have ended up with police investigations into reported suicides or killing?

I am concerned to read of Fox News World reports on the internet regarding Oxleas NHS Trust.

I would like to know what procedures are in place when a person arrives at Oxleas to prevent any notifiable incident.

Or is it the fact that a voluntary person is allowed to change their mind and leave?

In which case, do staff take the details and contact the police?

How are patients being fully protected by your policies of safeguarding?

And how do you protect your employees and safeguard them?"

I would be very grateful if the CQC could get the answers as you are the Regulatory Body and post the answers on this websitehttp://whatdotheyknow.com

From: Information Access
Care Quality Commission

24 January 2012

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for information dated 23 January 2012, which the Commission received on 23 January 2012. Your request for information is as follows: -

I am coming to you as the Regulator of Oxleas Mental Health NHS Trust because they refuse to answer my FOI Requests.

I asked in my FOI Request about untoward incidents at Oxleas. I now would like to ask you the questions I asked Oxleas and they refused. I have extended it to today's date, which makes it a different request again:

I refer to the Oxleas Executive Board Committee of June 2011:

"This was the first in-patient suicide for 2.5 years."

I would like to know what the Levels of Untoward Incident actually are.

What constitutes a Level 1 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 2 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 3 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 4 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

What constitutes a Level 5 Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

Is there any higher grade of Untoward Incident? If so, what constitutes a higher level of Untoward Incident? How many have there been at Oxleas since 2006 to 23 January 2012?

How many incidents at Oxleas have ended up with police investigations into reported suicides or killing?

I am concerned to read of Fox News World reports on the internet regarding Oxleas NHS Trust.

I would like to know what procedures are in place when a person arrives at Oxleas to prevent any notifiable incident.

Or is it the fact that a voluntary person is allowed to change their mind and leave?

In which case, do staff take the details and contact the police?

How are patients being fully protected by your policies of safeguarding?

And how do you protect your employees and safeguard them?"

Your request is now being processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your response should be sent to you within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as outlined by the Act, subject to the information not meeting exemption criteria or containing reference to a third party. Should this occur, you will be notified accordingly when we write to you next.

You can therefore expect a response by close of business 20 February 2012 respectively. In certain circumstances the Care Quality Commission may be unable to provide the information within statutory timescale. We will then inform you of the revised timescale prior to the deadline.

We may require further information from you in order to process your request. If this is the case you will be informed and the statutory timescale will be suspended until we receive further information from you. If you decide not to respond then your request will be closed.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the team, on the telephone number above, quoting our reference number.

************************************************************** Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to [1][CQC request email].

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

From: name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

24 January 2012

Thank you very much for writing to explain to me that you cannot actually answer my Freedom of Information Requests about Oxleas.

As some of my questions were actually generic - which I believe should be universal across the NHS - I would like to redraft my Freedom of Information Request above, and instead ask the following:

TERMINOLOGY: LEVELS OF UNTOWARD INCIDENT

I would like to know what the Levels of Untoward Incident actually are. Is this a nationally accepted term so that anyone working in the NHS will automatically understand what is being said rather like having GMT rather than local time?

What constitutes a Level 1 Untoward Incident?

What constitutes a Level 2 Untoward Incident?

What constitutes a Level 3 Untoward Incident?

What constitutes a Level 4 Untoward Incident?

What constitutes a Level 5 Untoward Incident?

Is there any higher grade of Untoward Incident?

If so, what constitutes a higher level of Untoward Incident?

NOTIFIABLE INCIDENTS NOTIFIED TO THE CARE QUALITY COMMISSION - NATIONALLY How many incidents does the Care Quality Commission have logged on their system that ended up with police investigations into reported suicides or killing?

This could be by county, country or local authority as you wish.

I believe that it is necessary for a public moratorium be made to protect everyone - and public safeguarding is the remit of Care Quality Commission so what is your input into this?

Have you been discussing this in Parliament and if so where are these discussions on Hansard please? Thank you.

CARE QUALITY COMMISSION'S INPUT

I would like to know what procedures are encouraged by Care Quality Commission to be put in place when a person arrives at any mental health facility to prevent any notifiable incident.

WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING A PERSON NOT BEING FORMALLY DETAINED

What is the law regarding a person not being formally detained under Section 2?

Does the person have the RIGHT to refuse admittance into a mental health facility, even if a medical recommendation has been made by both a Section 12 Doctor and a relevant clinician but no Section been applied?

I ask because I wish to know what is the precise law regarding detaining a person who, even if recommendations have been made and an AHMP is in the process of making a formal assessment based on these recommendations. Is the person legally entitled to refuse to go into detention UNTIL the Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 is registered and therefore legally binding?

It seems to me to be a possible lacuna in the law.

For if a person can be in a pre-admission suite, and not formally sectioned, is it not legally possible for the person to claim abduction if forcibly / coerced /removed to a mental health facility?

Is it not the law that a Section 135 has to be produced to remove someone from their residence or private property?

Or a Section 136 has to be produced to remove someone from a public place such as a hospital?

And if so, this has to be applied for? Do both have to be done through Magistrates? Or can an AHMP made an affidavit? What precisely is the legal requirement in England?

SAFEGUARDING How are patients being fully protected by the your Care Quality Commission's policies of safeguarding?

From: Information Access
Care Quality Commission

25 January 2012

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for information dated 23 January 2012, which was revised on 24 January 2012 and Commission received on the same day . Your request for information is as attached.

Your request is now being processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your response should be sent to you within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as outlined by the Act, subject to the information not meeting exemption criteria or containing reference to a third party. Should this occur, you will be notified accordingly when we write to you next.

You can therefore expect a response by close of business 21 February 2012 respectively. In certain circumstances the Care Quality Commission may be unable to provide the information within statutory timescale. We will then inform you of the revised timescale prior to the deadline.

We may require further information from you in order to process your request. If this is the case you will be informed and the statutory timescale will be suspended until we receive further information from you. If you decide not to respond then your request will be closed.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the team, on the telephone number above, quoting our reference number.

************************************************************** Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to [1][CQC request email].

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

From: Information Access
Care Quality Commission

25 January 2012

Dear Ms [last name removed]

In relation to your specific request CQC IAT 2012 0072 I can confirm that we have not yet formally issued a refusal notice or provided the information to you. In relation to this request I am still presently making enquiries with the appropriate team as to what information we hold.

The only correspondence sent thus far in relation to request CQC IAT 2012 0072 was an acknowledgement and then advising you that we would not consider an Internal Review of this request until we had formally responded to you.

I do however note in relation to your specific request CQC IAT 2012 0075 we have had further correspondence with you in which we provided advice and assistance to you to clarify the Information Access Team's role. This was not a formal refusal notice of any of your outstanding requests but merely advice about the requirements that CQC are placed under as a result of the Freedom of Information legislation.

I also note that the revisions you provided to requests CQC IAT 2012 0071, CQC IAT 2012 0073 and CQC IAT 2012 0074 have been most helpful and I am currently in the process of obtaining this information from the appropriate teams.

The Commission still fully intend to respond to all 5 requests that you have made via what do they know and will advise you of this in due course.

I have also sent a copy of this advice to the separate e-mail address for each of the 5 requests you have made.

**************************************************************Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to [CQC request email].

Please refer to another of my FOI Requests and see what you wrote there.

That is why I wrote asking for an Internal Review because of what you yourself wrote. And why I have reconfigured most of my FOI Requests as you said you would pass nn my concerns, for which I am grateful. regarding Oxleas - and, for the record, I DO have a very personal interest in that particular Mental Health NHS Trust as with London Borough of Bromley and Orpington CMHT and Princess Royal University Hospital, Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust and South London Healthcare NHS Trust and Bromley PCT and Crofton Surgery/Summercroft Surgery and LAS and Moorfields Hospital and SLAM - some going back several years - and with the Care Quality Commission, and the Healthcare Commission its predecessor, and with the Local Government Ombudsman, and Department of Health, and the Prime Minister, and the Parliamentary Health Ombudsman, and the GMC, and the NMC.

I simply want the Truth.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Member of Oxleas Campaigner for Liberty, Truth and Justice

-----Original Message-----

Dear Mrs [last name removed]

Currently CQC have not yet formally responded to your request. Our e-mail dated yesterday was an acknowledgement of you original request for information.

At present I am awaiting a formal response from our Mental Health Team to see what information we will hold in relation to this request. Once we get that information from them we will then be in an appropriate position to try and respond to your request.

I therefore find the request for an Internal Review not valid until we have provided our formal response to you.

************************************************************** Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to [CQC request email].

------------------------------------------------------------------- Please use this email address for all replies to this request: [email address]

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the senderaccepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

I am writing in response to your request for information dated 23 January 2012 in which you made a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), which the Commission received on 23 January 2012 and was then amended on 24 January 2012.

************************************************************** Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to [1][CQC request email].

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

I would like to know what the Levels of Untoward Incident actually are. Is this a nationally accepted term so that anyone working in the NHS will automatically understand what is being said rather like having GMT rather than local time?

SUI’s are reported to CQC by NHS Trust and any pattern of incidents or serious incidents which may indicate non-compliance with the essential standards may lead to us conducting a review of compliance of the NHS Trust.

During a review of compliance we may check that SUI’s and SLE’s are investigated correctly and that any corrective measures identified were carried out.

How many incidents does the Care Quality Commission have logged on their system that ended up with police investigations into reported suicides or killing?

The Commission has recorded 11,372 notifications of police incidents received under the Health and Social Care Act between 1 April 2010 and 16 February 2012.

Under regulation 18 providers are required to notify the Commission of any incident which is reported to the police. Our central system however does not report on whether these notifications ended up with any police investigations. Also regulation 18 does not apply to NHS trusts. Please see the table of the requirements of providers to notify the Commission of certain situations:

The notification form usually only states that the police were informed of an incident and a very brief description of that incident, which is all that the service are required to provide. The provider does not have to state why the police were called and naturally many things can merit calling the police to a particular service.

Also any reporting of incidents involving a service user is anonymised by the service before being sent to the Commission. This would mean that cross-referencing information we hold to look for suspicious deaths would be a near impossible task even if time were not an issue.

It may also be possible to obtain such information from each police force as to how many police investigations took place into reported suicides or killings in a care setting. Also the coroner has a responsibility when the death is suspected to have been either sudden with unknown cause, violent, or unnatural, to decide whether to hold a post-mortem or an inquest. It may be useful to discuss with the local coroner to see what information they potentially hold.

For any incident reported to the police by NHS Trusts we would advise that you contact the NHS Information Centre or any specific Trust which is of interest to you.

This could be by county, country or local authority as you wish.

Please see the spreadsheet attached for the number of notifications of police incidents by local authority area. Our central system however does not report on whether these notifications ended up with any police investigations.

I believe that it is necessary for a public moratorium be made to protect everyone - and public safeguarding is the remit of Care Quality Commission so what is your input into this?

This does not constitute a request for recorded information and we therefore do not consider this to be a valid request under Section 1 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This part of your request is asking us to provide an opinion on something which you believe. If you wish to raise this particular issue with the Commission then you can contact [email address redacted]

Have you been discussing this in Parliament and if so where are these discussions on Hansard please?

CQC is a non-departmental public body accountable to Parliament. In 2010 the Health Select Committee announced its intention to hold accountability hearings with each of the major health non-departmental public bodies, including CQC. Our Chair appears annually before the Health Select Committee where she is questioned on the progress the organisation is making and the concerns of members of the Committee. The reports following the hearings are produced by the Health Select Committee and are available on their website: http://www.parliament.uk/healthcom

Parliamentarians from time to time raise issues in Parliament about the role and capability of CQC with Ministers. We do not hold a log of these. Information may be found through the Official Report 'Hansard' which can be searched here:http://www.parliament.uk/search/advanced/

3] CARE QUALITY COMMISSION'S INPUT

I would like to know what procedures are encouraged by Care Quality Commission to be put in place when a person arrives at any mental health facility to prevent any notifiable incident.

CQC does not encourage specific procedures. CQC registers services that are deemed fit to be registered and ensures compliance under the relevant legislation.

4] WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING A PERSON NOT BEING FORMALLY DETAINED

What is the law regarding a person not being formally detained under Section 2?

Does the person have the RIGHT to refuse admittance into a mental health facility, even if a medical recommendation has been made by both a Section 12 Doctor and a relevant clinician but no Section been applied?

I ask because I wish to know what is the precise law regarding detaining a person who, even if recommendations have been made and an AHMP is in the process of making a formal assessment based on these recommendations. Is the person legally entitled to refuse to go into detention UNTIL the Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 is registered and therefore legally binding?

It seems to me to be a possible lacuna in the law.

For if a person can be in a pre-admission suite, and not formally sectioned, is it not legally possible for the person to claim abduction if forcibly / coerced /removed to a mental health facility?

Is it not the law that a Section 135 has to be produced to remove someone from their residence or private property?

Or a Section 136 has to be produced to remove someone from a public place such as a hospital?

And if so, this has to be applied for? Do both have to be done through Magistrates? Or can an AHMP made an affidavit? What precisely is the legal requirement in England?

Response to Part 4 This does not constitute a request for recorded information and we therefore do not consider this to be a valid request under Section 1 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This part of your request is asking for legal advice. If you require further advice on the Mental Health Act 1983 we would suggest you obtain independent legal advice.

I can confirm that no legal advice on the matters you mention above is held by the Commission

5] SAFEGUARDING

How are patients being fully protected by the Care Quality Commission's policies of safeguarding?

This does not constitute a request for recorded information and we therefore do not consider this to be a valid request under Section 1 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This part of your request is asking for an opinion of how we protect patients through our safeguarding policies.

Currently, all employees undertake CQC's health and safety e-learning training and a workstation assessment that covers all aspects of health and safety, including personal safety. There is an annual refresh of this training as a basic requirement. All new employees also undertake health and safety training as part of their induction. There are qualified first aiders and fire officers in all CQC buildings. In addition to this CQC offer role specific training on: First Aid, Fire Safety and Manual handling.

As a proactive employer CQC has a number of robust people policies including zero tolerance on bullying, grievance, disciplinary and lone working policies, as well as protecting its staff with whistleblowing protocols. CQC also offers access to right core care a counselling service that is free to all employees. CQC is in the process of obtaining Mindful employer status, along with Employer forum on disability charter mark.

The health and safety e-learning product is currently being updated to include lone working and personal safety and will be ready by the end of March. CQC are also developing personal safety face to face training for anyone who identifies this as a learning need.

The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of all health and adult social care in England. [1]www.cqc.org.uk. For general enquiries, telephone the National Contact Centre: 03000 616161.

Statutory requests for information made pursuant to access to information legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, should be sent to: [2][CQC request email]

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed to or used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If this email is received in error, please notify us immediately by clicking "Reply" and delete the email. Please note that neither the Care Quality Commission nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Care Quality Commission.

From: name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

9 April 2012

I am very concerned that the Care Quality Commission has stated that I had not made a Freedom of Information request in this specific request for information:

"4] WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING A PERSON NOT BEING FORMALLY DETAINED

What is the law regarding a person not being formally detained under Section 2?

Does the person have the RIGHT to refuse admittance into a mental health facility, even if a medical recommendation has been made by both a Section 12 Doctor and a relevant clinician but no Section been applied?

I ask because I wish to know what is the precise law regarding detaining a person who, even if recommendations have been made and an AHMP is in the process of making a formal assessment based on these recommendations. Is the person legally entitled to refuse to go into detention UNTIL the Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 is registered and therefore legally binding?

It seems to me to be a possible lacuna in the law.

For if a person can be in a pre-admission suite, and not formally sectioned, is it not legally possible for the person to claim abduction if forcibly / coerced /removed to a mental health facility?

Is it not the law that a Section 135 has to be produced to remove someone from their residence or private property?

Or a Section 136 has to be produced to remove someone from a public place such as a hospital?

And if so, this has to be applied for? Do both have to be done through Magistrates? Or can an AHMP made an affidavit? What precisely is the legal requirement in England?

Response to Part 4 This does not constitute a request for recorded information and we therefore do not consider this to be a valid request under Section 1 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This part of your request is asking for legal advice. If you require further advice on the Mental Health Act 1983 we would suggest you obtain independent legal advice.

I can confirm that no legal advice on the matters you mention above is held by the Commission"

I find it inconceivable that the Care Quality Commission which is responsible for much social and healthcare in England, does not hold any information about this at all.

"This part of your request is asking for legal advice."

Information is what I seek. If it is recorded somewhere in the Care Quality Commission's possession, then this information can and should be delivered to me at whatdotheyknow website.

How can it be said that I am asking for "legal advice" when I place as the heading:

4] WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING A PERSON NOT BEING FORMALLY DETAINED

This is not asking for advice. This is asking for specific information. How can the Care Quality Commission actually be able to work at all if the Care Quality Commission does not have any details of this? After all, you have lawyers. What legal advice have your lawyers given?

There MUST be somewhere legal opinion given on these matters, I aver, and therefore you should be able to produce it for whatdotheyknow website.

"What is the law regarding a person not being formally detained under Section 2?"

Similarly, this is asking for the law regarding a person not being formally detained under section 2. This is NOT asking for legal advice. It is requesting INFORMATION that must be held by the Care Quality Commission otherwise your employees would not be able to do their jobs properly or give proper advice, legally. Your lawyers and legal advisers must have this information, and therefore you should be able to give this information to me via whatdotheyknow website as FOI Request.

"Does the person have the RIGHT to refuse admittance into a mental health facility, even if a medical recommendation has been made by both a Section 12 Doctor and a relevant clinician but no Section been applied?"

Again the Care Quality Commission MUST have this information for without it their employees would NOT be able to do their job properly and in accordance with the law. The lawyers and legal advisers of the Care Quality Commission must have this information and opinion and therefore this should be given to me via whatdotheyknow website please.

Similarly, the Care Quality Commission must via their legal advisers and lawyers have the answers to all my questions I have posed including the following:

"I ask because I wish to know what is the precise law regarding detaining a person who, even if recommendations have been made and an AHMP is in the process of making a formal assessment based on these recommendations. Is the person legally entitled to refuse to go into detention UNTIL the Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983/2007 is registered and therefore legally binding?

It seems to me to be a possible lacuna in the law.

For if a person can be in a pre-admission suite, and not formally sectioned, is it not legally possible for the person to claim abduction if forcibly / coerced /removed to a mental health facility?

Is it not the law that a Section 135 has to be produced to remove someone from their residence or private property?

Or a Section 136 has to be produced to remove someone from a public place such as a hospital?

And if so, this has to be applied for? Do both have to be done through Magistrates? Or can an AHMP made an affidavit? What precisely is the legal requirement in England?"

I am very concerned that the Care Quality Commission is not giving the Information that it holds not just in the Access department but in their legal department which is still part of the Care Quality Commission.